Howling At the Moon

   When most people think of changes during the full moon, they imagine men changing into hairy lycanthropes, but some people don't know of the other fabled changes said to happen in non-werewolf people. The truth behind the changes of the body and mind during a full moon are discussed in "Lunacy and the Full Moon" by Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld on www.scientificamerican.com 

    Many people believe that the rising of a full moon causes odd behaviors. Even if this is not true, I find it interesting seeing the connection between the Roman goddess of the moon, Luna, and the word "lunatic." The well-known Greek philosopher Aristotle said that the brain was the wettest organ in the body and thus the most likely to be affected by the moon, which triggers the tides. The idea of the “lunar lunacy effect” or “Transylvania effect” was popular in Europe through the Middle Ages, when humans were widely reputed to morph into werewolves or vampires during a full moon.
    Even now many people think the magical powers of the full moon induce spontaneous actions, psychiatric hospital admissions, suicides, homicides, emergency room calls, traffic accidents, fights at professional hockey games, dog bites, old people streaking, and all manner of strange events. One survey revealed that 45 percent of college students believe moonstruck humans are prone to unusual behaviors.

   But that's just all what people believe. What's the fact behind it?
   The most accepted theory is that, because our body is made of 80% water that the pulling and pushing forces of the moon move around our molecules and cause us to do participate in unordinary shenanigans. This is not true because the moon's affect is so minuscule it wouldn't do anything to our bodies. A few other reasons this theory doesn't hold is because the lunar pull only works on open bodies of water, and even if it did work on our bodies, the tides are just as strong during a full moon as they are during a new moon, yet there is no "new moon lunacy."

   The next discouraging thing to those who believe adamantly in the lunar lunacy affect, is that there is NO proof that it exists.
Florida International University psychologist James Rotton, Colorado State University astronomer Roger Culver, and University of Saskatchewan psychologist Ivan W. Kelly have searched to the moon and back (pun intended) for any consistent behavioral effects of the full moon. In all cases, they have found nothing. By reviewing the results of 37 studies and treating them as though they were one huge study, they have found that full moons are entirely unrelated to crimes, suicides, psychiatric problems, and crisis center calls.



    I have never felt the impulse to do something especially peculiar during a full moon, nor have I ever observed others acting in a different manner as the moon hang high and full above us in the sky, so I'm not sure I believe in the lunar lunacy affect. I do find the idea of it very interesting though, and it is a myth in the science world that I almost wish was true.
    Thanks for reading my blog, if you like to read the article this post was based off of you can find it at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon/

I'm Not Crying, There's Just Some Genetic Coding in My Eye

   It is common knowledge that depression tends run in families, and women are much more emotional than men, but according to the article I read on Sciencedaily.com, our genetic coding has more control over our feelings than previously thought.

   In the article, "How Your Brain Reacts to Emotional Information is Affected by Your Genes," published May 7th, 2015, it discusses how carriers of a certain gene perceived positive and negative images more vividly than others without said gene.

   The experiment talked about in this article conducted at University of British Columbia studies people with and without the gene ADRA2b, which influences the neurotransmitter norepinephrine. Carriers of this gene showed a great deal more of activity in a region of the brain responsible for controlling feelings and detecting pleasure and threat.

Pictured above: University of British Columbia

   Study participants were asked to estimate the amount of "noise," or pixelation, put on images that had either positive, negative or neutral emotional content. Compared to non-carriers, carriers of the ADRA2b gene estimated lower levels of noise on positive and negative images, relative to neutral images, indicating emotionally enhanced vividness, or EEV.
   I'm not quite sure how the estimation on the editing of a picture can relate to emotional levels, but on the more scientific side of things that I can believe, carriers of the genetic code also showed significantly more brain activity reflecting EEV in key regions of the brain sensitive to emotional relevance.




Image shows increased activity in the brains of ADRA2b carriers.

Credit: Image courtesy of University of British Columbia

   The results of this study prove to be a possible explanation as to why some people are more susceptible to things such as PTSD. This experiment also can give us ideas as to why some people are more sensitive than others. It may not just be the way someone was raised that causes people to react the way they do, but is also influence by coding our parents passed onto us. Further research is planned on this certain gene to explore emotionally enhanced vividness in different ethnicities, anxiety and stress-related mental disorders, and addiction.
    You can read the article for yourself at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150507135919.htm

All You Need to Know About the Placebo Effect

    The site most commonly used by hypochondriacs, WebMD.com, has pages of info on the placebo effect, but I'm here to do my required weekly blog and give you the abridged version. So here goes nothing....

    A placebo is anything that appears to be an actual medical treatment, but is not. Placebos can include pills, shots, and other various treatments.
    Many people after hearing this would wonder why anyone would ever use a fake treatment. The answer to this question is that scientists use placebos during studies to help them understand what effect a new drug may have on a certain person or ailment. For example, half the people in a study might be given a new drug to improve eyesight. Others would get a placebo. None of the people in the study would know if they were given the placebo or the real drug. After being on either the placebo or real drug for a certain amount of time researchers would compare the effects of the drug and the placebo on the people in the study. This can help them determine the effectiveness of the new drug and check for side effects.

     What I found most interesting in reading about placebos is that some placebos had effects on patients even though they had known they were only taking placebos. The problems that were helped by placebos include depression, pain, sleep disorders, IBS, and menopause. In one study involving asthma, patients using a placebo inhaler did no better on breathing tests than sitting and doing nothing, but when researchers asked the patients how they felt, the placebo inhaler was reported as being as effective as medicine in providing relief.
    Now I know you're wondering, if it's a pill meant to do nothing, how can it help diseases? The most common theory is that a person expects the placebo to do something, and thus the body's own chemistry will produce the same effects. For instance, in one study, people were given a placebo and told it was a stimulant. After taking the pill, their pulse rate sped up, their blood pressure increased, and their reaction speeds improved. When people were given the same pill and told it was to help them get to sleep, they experienced the opposite effects.

    I find the placebo effect to be extremely fascinating as it shows how powerful our own thoughts are, and it proves mind over matter can even help physical problems.


Also the amount of comics on placebos is absolutely insane... Here are a few of my favorites!

The Science of Theatre

    My favorite things in the entire world are science and acting. Those two don't seem to correlate, but many articles I have read beg to differ. The articles are hardly credible and should be doubted, but I read them nonetheless, and part of science is knowing to not believe everything you hear. So in honor of the fact that I should be reviewing my lines right now for the upcoming play, The Great Gatsby, here is my weekly science blog.

Picture credited to: bloomsbury.com

    One of the more interesting posts I've perused that involved both dramatics and science was called  "Think Acting Is About Emotional Empathy? Science Says No." written by someone with the username Peopletriggers. Yes, there isn't even a real author's name, so the likelihood of the science being correct is slim, but I found the post intriguing anyway.
    This article talks about how most people look at dramatics as an emotional exercise. The majority of people believe that those who are empathetic would be more likely to be good actors, but science, apparently, disproves this thought.
    Thalia Goldstein, a social science researcher from Pace University who studies the relationship between acting and psychology, believes the ability to act lies in a psychological concept called “Theory of Mind.” Theory of Mind is the understanding that “two people can have different but equally valid interpretations of the same object or image,” and the term describes a person’s ability to understand someone else’s interpretation. Theory of mind (the ability to understand another’s mental state and motivations) is very different from empathy (the ability to put oneself in someone else’s emotional place). We know this by studying psychopaths and bullies. Psychopaths and bullies are extraordinarily socially adapted, and manipulate people by getting in their head, but have little or no empathy.

Picture credited to: dynamics.com

    Goldstein administered tons of Theory of Mind and empathy tests to groups of actors and non-actors. Goldstein conducted two separate studies to this effect and found similar results: acting training was significantly associated with heightened Theory of Mind skills, but not heightened empathy skills. This could be for two reasons, that acting causes people to be more socially aware, or acting attracts more socially aware people in the first place.
  I found this article to be quite interesting because although people tell me I am a talented actress, I don't find myself to be a very empathetic person. I always thought this to be strange because I personally thought being able to put oneself in another's shoes was the key to acting, but I feel that the Theory of Mind idea is much more logical and correlates more with my lack of empathy. If you would like to read the article yourself you can find the link below!
https://peopletriggers.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/think-acting-is-about-emotional-empathy-science-says-no/

Bloody Good Rap Song

As for this blog post, it's unlike any other
It goes out to Kolodj-man, my main brother
If you can't tell already, this is a rap
And if you listen carefully, I'm gonna teach you some crap
Let's start with the heart
Pumping to the beat
As for keeping you alive, it conquers this feat
There are hidden chambers, just like Hogwarts
The blood is what they help you transport
Ventricles on bottom, shaped like a "V'
Atria on top, right inside of me
Pulmonary arteries send blood RIGHT to the lungs
What's LEFT goes to everywhere else, even your hands, feet, and tongue
Those aren't only parts inside the heart inside of you
It has the aorta, vena cava, and some valves, just to name a few
Let's see the rest of the cardiovascular system
The arteries, veins, and the capillaries assist them
Arteries away, and veins carry to
And connecting is what the capillaries do
These things hold the blood
That really is your bud
For moving around the oxygen you breath
And helping the wastes in your body leave
Red blood cells carry O2
Platelets stop the bleeding after a knife slices through
White blood cells prevent you from sickness
Just like the skin does with its epidermal thickness
This is your immune system keeping you strong
Without it things would go wrong
Mucous membranes catch pesky little germs
And your healthiness it what it affirms
Your nose, throat, and stomach have this helpful goo
That stops viruses from infecting you
But if they don't stop them there's a second line of defense
The pathogen is attacked by B cells, macrophages, and some of their friends
After that, memory cells are made, just like vaccines
So if the body encounters the same pathogen again, the antibodies will be right at the scene
This is an abridged version the chapters we've read
And if you want a better education you should read them instead
But if you want sweets rhymes and imaginary beats that make you hop like a frog
Then you should just come here and read my blog.

The Brontosaurus: Fact or Fiction?

   In the article "Brontosaurus Stomps Back to Claim Its Status as Real Dinosaur," written Ralph Martins, National Geographic, it discusses how the Brontosaurus may be its own dinosaur after all instead of being a closely related species of the genus Apatosaurus.
   Brontosaurus excelsus became Apatosaurus excelsus in 1903, but the name Brontosaurus, which means "thunder lizard" would live on for years to come. That was until 1970 when scientists ended the arguing by showing that the skull's of the two were extremely similar, therefore condemning the Brontosaurus to the same realm as unicorns, jackalopes, and other things that didn't exist.
   This new discovery bringing the Brontosaurus  "back to life" so to speak, has come from the research on the evolution of diplodocids, the family in which the  Brontosaurus belongs.  This family lived in North America, Europe, and parts of Africa during the late Jurassic period. Researchers looked at 81 diplodocids, looking at the presence or absence of 477 different skeletal features. Closely related species shared a lot of these features, while some species—like Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus—had much less in common. Their findings showed that the diplodocid family should be expanded to include two more genera, Brontosaurus and Galeamopus.

   I found this article quite informative and interesting as I had never known Brontosauruses were not real. I had, for the longest time, actually identified them as my favorite dinosaur, and I find it compelling that I had no clue they were once classified as not being a dinosaur at all.

Pictured above:

 

Brontosaurus, as imagined by paleontologists in the late 1800s: aquatic, and wearing a Camarasaurus skull. Later research would show that the sauropod actually had a slim, horselike skull.



All pictures taken along with the article source can be found at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150407-brontosaurus-back-return-apatosaurus-sauropod-dinosaurs-fossils-paleontology/

 

Is DNA Destiny?

   This question is posed often in science. There is no easy answer as there are many ways to break down this enigmatic inquiry. To me, the idea of DNA controlling your future can most easily be viewed by putting it into two categories, personality and physicality.

   DNA controlling who you are as a person is often thought about in the age old question, nature or nurture? Do you behave the way you do because you were raised that way? Do you act in a certain manner because you inherited some specific genes from you parents, or was it media and society that shaped the person you are? It may be none of these things at all, but I believe you are shaped more by who raised and your environment than the seemingly never-ending code of C's, G's, A's, and T's in your DNA . Studies have shown that a child and their siblings who grew up in a household with their parents were much more likely to have the same personality traits as their parents, rather than a sibling who was put up for adoption and raised in another household. Genetics doesn't lay out the way you are going operate. It doesn't destine you to be a certain way. It may make you more prone to act in a one manner or another, for example, those with a history of depression in their family may be more likely to get depression themselves and be moody, but the way a person handles that situation is completely up to them. They may get help from a doctor or family member, or they may let the dark hold of depression choke them out. The genes may be prominent in their veins, but they make their own choices in their brains. DNA does not set in stone who a person is.

   People may ague that while DNA doesn't completely control personality, it has a much stronger link to physical problems. This is true, but I believe your "destiny," so to speak, is in your own hands. If you know you're more likely to get heart disease due to your family background, you can do things to prevent the problem from growing, such as eating right and exercising. Many diseases cannot be prevented as easily though, things like cancer and multiple sclerosis, but you can control how you deal with them. There are many people who lay down and accept their fate when diagnosed with diseases like these, but then there are people, like my mother, who did not hear the nails in her coffin when the doctor told her the news. She heard opportunity. Opportunity to show others you aren't your disease. Opportunity to prove that her DNA was not her destiny. Opportunity to present to the world she could still be successful, beyond successful, even though her genes told her otherwise.
   
  So in short DNA, to me, is not your destiny. Your destiny is the choices you make based on the hand life deals you. It is the path you choose based on the alleles your parents give you.